Right, but he agreed that it could pertain to historic areas like schools, court houses, etc. What happened to the 2A clause "shall not be infringed". Here is what he said:
"Although we have no occasion to comprehensively define “sensitive places” in this case, we do think respondents err in their attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law. But expanding the category of “sensitive places” simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of “sensitive places” far too broadly. The Court’s answer is that judges will simply have to employ “analogical reasoning.” Ante, at 19–20. But, as I explained above, the Court does not provide clear guidance on how to apply such reasoning. "
So, he opened the window a little bit, and NY and NJ stormed through it, like an army, with their sensitive lists.
I think Thomas should have laid out SPECIFICALLY where the sensitive areas were (or none at all), versus leaving it a bit vague. By leaving it grey, or not going back to the original "shall not be infringed", is why we find ourselves in this situation now, and why the overreach by these certain governors.
Thomas should have known, based on current events, that certain states don't honor the constitution, so he should have written his opinion in first grade, clear language, that couldn't be twisted or abused.
Any chance he can go back and add a modification or correction to his opinion to help Murphy and Hochul understand better?